Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #section230

Most recents (24)

News Flash 🎇
June 24, 2022
Earth 🌎
Supreme Court of USA 🇺🇸 @SCOTUSblog
In Protected Custody of US Federal Police 👮‍♀️👮🏽👮🏿‍♀️💂🏻🫃🏼
#RoeVsWade actually #JaneDoeVsWade found in conflict with our #ConstitutionalRights.
How many Protesters Violated laws & Tried to Influence Judges?
News Flash ⚡️2
Cover Who Leaked #SCOTUS Draft Opinion?
I will. @FoxNews will and we both will be vilified by President Biden, along with #MAGA #SuperMAGA #UltraMAGA Half the Country.
War on Conservatives has officially begun.
My followers are free to comment on my opinions. Be nice.
@elonmusk if I get banned or doxxed or otherwise lose my right to Free Speech, consider it a violation of #Section230.
Are employees of Twitter & Google affecting information sharing & public opinion? @rafshmatko
Read 4 tweets
“The thesis does a media studies analysis of Section 230 coverage. …horrified by the mainstream media’s failures in covering Section 230 when it mattered the most.”

This post from @ericgoldman is clear-eyed about bothsidesism privileging lies, and /1…
and also the need for reporters to have trusted experts to rely on — not just politicians and bad-faith manipulators.

To inform the public it is not enough just to report on what several people say. Journalists MUST have some expertise they can draw on.
The lesson is that we need both partisan and expert outlets.

Neutral media just isn’t up to the task of informing us about what citizens of a democracy need to know.

**this foreshadows a study we at @MAD_Democracy are releasing tomorrow- get ready!
Read 6 tweets
@rafshmatko #realDonaldTrump speaks even when Twitter banned @elonmusk Thank You Elon Musk for allowing Me to stay connected with Friend Artist Rafael Shmatko & Family🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🇺🇦 I want #MSM to get Facts straight. Is it even Remotely Possible HRC Fraudulently Interfered w election?
She got played…
Tsk, tsk. He’s not even Handsome.
Oh, He’s an Experienced & Clever KGB Spy 🕵️‍♀️
She fell for it.
He didn’t whisper something nice to her.
She was terrified. Or her bladder emptied,
Or both…Depends 🤦‍♀️
2012 Chums
2022 What Happened?
#GenocideOfUkrainians by Russia.
Yes, #realDonaldTrump was Twitter Banned,
Pootin still has a Twitter account 🤦‍♀️
Read 9 tweets
Oggi #Obama ha dichiarato che i #social stanno "amplificando alcuni dei peggiori istinti dell'umanità" e ha chiesto la riforma della #Section230. Istituita da Clinton nel 1996, la legge non considera i social come “#editori” e dunque li esonera dalle responsabilità editoriali 1/6
Ci sono però dei limiti. La #Section230 non conferisce immunità x reati federali o rivendicazioni di #proprietàintellettuale. Il Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act del 2018 ha inoltre specificato che la Section230 non si applica alle violazioni delle leggi sul #trafficosessuale 2/6
Con un contestato executive order,#Trump mise in discussione la #Section230 nel 2020. Secondo lui, proteggeva i #social a lui ostili dalle azioni legali contro la censura. Le aziende Tech protestarono. L’account di Trump fu chiuso da #Twitter gen 2021
Read 6 tweets
For @townhallcom ✍️

Dear Elon Musk, For the Sake of Freedom of Speech in the Public Town Square, buy Twitter ASAP!💰🐦… @elonmusk #elonmusk #ElonMuskBuyTwitter #ElonMusktwitter #musk #elon @SophiaNarwitz @ItalianxComedy @chadfelixg @BlueBoxDave
yes i know the title is a mouthful lol
Read 28 tweets
I’m always listening
As long as my Google search of #MultipleSclerosisCauses yields “Possible” Causes, question every word, every Doctor.
Next tweet is more thoughts about your ideas Martin 😎🖖🏼
Of course if You Follow Me, You know I am fighting #MultipleSclerosis
War in #Ukraine
Partisan Hate Speech/Censorship allowed by @paraga @Twitter with #Section230 Protection Racket by Lawmakers 🇺🇸
Pondering 🤔 our complex vascular system.
#pharma is a drug
Martin, started using @Apollo_Neuro and @ouraring September 2020.
My HRV never as low as Pre-Apollo. Gets me thinking about my years as an ICU Nurse. Blood Flow, Perfusion, that Pause during heartbeats that sends blood to the heart, takes toxins away.
Read 10 tweets
.@SenateJudiciary is marking up #EARNITAct, which claims to crack down on child sexual abuse material but will really jeopardize prosecutions. Forcing tech firms not to use strong encryption & to monitor users makes them state actors who need a warrant 🧵…
#EARNITAct's sponsors say they've fixed the bill. They haven't. Making the "best practices" "voluntary" doesn't help. The 4th Amd./privacy problem has always been come from exposing tech companies to such vast liability that they *must* monitor what users say & abandon encryption
#EARNITAct was changed in 2020 to "fix" the liability it enables under federal law (by tying it to "actual knowledge", but it then does exactly the same thing through the back door: enabling states to enforce criminal & civil laws that turn on mere recklessness or negligence
Read 50 tweets
I’m testifying in Congress about #BigTech's stranglehold on our safety. For too long, corporations like Facebook and Google have used #Section230 to argue that they are exempt from civil rights laws, choosing to protect their profits and power at all costs.
If we leave it up to #BigTech, Congress will do nothing but pass policies that blame the victims of their harmful decisions, pretend that "color blind" policies will do anything to address racism on their platforms and allow them to self-regulate. We can't let that happen.
Going forward, I’m looking forward to working with Congress to pass regulations and create real solutions to curb Big Tech’s power.
Read 3 tweets
Okay, this House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on #Section230 is kicking off now. Watch along here:…
.@USRepMikeDoyle just claimed that Congress has consulted with "the people most affected" by Section 230.

How can he say that? There are zero witnesses at today's hearing who are experts on SESTA/FOSTA or the impact that the last Section 230 changes had on sex workers. Absurd
He also falsely claims that there is bipartisan agreement on how to change Section 230. That's laughable. Democrats and Republicans could not be further apart on this issue. They hate 230 for completely opposite reasons. None of the bills discussed today have a chance in hell
Read 66 tweets
Tomorrow, I’ll be testifying in front of the House @EnergyCommerce committee about #Section230 — talking about how to make #BigTech liable for the problems they cause instead of making all of us pay for it.…
I want to thank the Committee of Energy and Commerce for holding this hearing and introducing the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act, the Safe Tech Act, and the Civil Rights Modernization Act, each one of which is crucial for addressing the harms wrought by #BigTech.
The tech industry doesn't get to have its own rules. Like with any industry: self-regulation always turns out to mean no regulation, and unregulated corporations makes our problems worse, not better.
Read 11 tweets
Whenever I speak about Section 230, I always use the chat site Omegle as the prototype of a site that should not be immune for third-party posted content. I am so glad *someone*--the redoubtable @cagoldberglaw--is finally testing whether 230 really protects Omegle.
I have my doubts that this suit will survive a motion to dismiss under current law. But if you can read it without seething rage, and an overpowering sense that it *should* survive such a motion, I would love to hear a coherent argument that what Omegle...
does deserves blanket immunity from liability.…
Read 7 tweets
1/ Democrats want to stop websites from spreading hate speech, misinformation, etc

But this bill would do the opposite; it would do exactly what the Trump administration wanted—because @EnergyCommerce Dems still don't understand how #Section230 works
2/ The bill would expose many websites to liability, both civil and criminal, for making recommendations. States will enforce existing laws & write new ones, and we'll spend years litigating them under the First Amendment

But that's not all the bill does...
3/ The bill turns off (c)(1) protections "with respect to information" subject to a "personalized recommendation"

Thus, a website could be sued both for recommending content and also for trying to stop its spread once it's been "recommended" by automated, algorithmic processes
Read 12 tweets
Just attended My Church on @YouTube @Ord_Off 🙏🏼
Great Service 👍🏼
One slide had me pondering,
#realDonaldTrump image flew by.
He was constructing a Wall. A Barrier where Non Americans walk into USA. No Fence, No Customs, No Declaration, No #Covid Questions.
Canada Border Closed.
I just watched this video by #realDonaldTrump which explains a lot. He talks Regulatory Reform, Property Rights, Stepping up Ventilator manufacturing and sharing with less fortunate countries. He called #COVID19 the China Virus. At the time he was mocked for this by #MSM
#Telehealth in speech #realDonaldTrump Covid-19 necessitated Distance Assessment and management of Patients by Medical Staff. No credit by #MSM . In Fact @Twitter banned him for “inciting a riot”. He did not. Why was Nancy Pelosi’s elevator unlocked? Capitol police stood back.
Read 8 tweets
I'm going to take a crack at live tweeting @yaleisp's panel 2 on academic perspective of the #FacebookFiles. If you want to tune in, register at…

We're joined by @jackbalkin @persily @davidakaye @ZephyrTeachout, moderated by @nikenberger
@yaleisp @jackbalkin @persily @davidakaye @ZephyrTeachout @nikenberger @ZephyrTeachout raising the point that concentration of power in platforms is antithetical to ideals of a democracy. "We've never had gatekeepers at this scale." Complete vertical integration...
When asked if @Facebook has "gone off the rails", @davidakaye replies, "there have been no 'legal' rails!"

Since ~2016, it became apparent platforms have a dramatic effect on democracy. They are driven by a desire for growth & this is often in conflict w/ democratic goals.
Read 21 tweets
New Facebook whistleblower shines light on algorithmic harms. The solution is privacy legislation that makes Facebook’s surveillance driven business model illegal. Congress can and should pass a privacy law strong enough to kill Facebook. #facebookdown #facebookwhistleblower
Last night, the whistleblower behind a series of Wall Street Journal articles about Facebook revealed herself in interviews with 60 minutes and a number of major news outlets.…
Frances Haugen, a former member of Facebook’s civic integrity team, correctly points to algorithmic-amplification-that’s-maximized-for-engagement as being at the root of many of Facebook’s harms.
Read 20 tweets
You know it’s hard enough growing up in the USA 🇺🇸.
I know, I know, We Have a Lot of Resources.
Sorely lacking when it comes to Self Esteem.
@Facebook banned the 45th POTUS, #realDonaldTrump.
Anybody can be Banned, Banished, Extinctified, Cancelled.
Afraid of Freely Speaking. 1️⃣
2️⃣ Meanwhile, #realDonaldTrump ‘s Wife, Former #FLOTUS is on Social Sadistic Media like @Twitter sees the Runaway Insults, Sensitive photos of Her, Rude, Obnoxious,
BULLYING is the word. Teenagers learn what they see. “Let’s gang up on Susie or Kyle or Donnie “ Get ‘em cancelled.
3️⃣ @Facebook and @Twitter have become the Moral Standard for their Participants. I started using as an adult in my 50’s when this Era of “Social Media” started. I liked that I could “talk” to People around the world 🌎, indeed Off the Planet, too @Space_Station ❤️🚀🛰
Read 10 tweets
1/ Last week, two business school profs tried their hand at #Section230 and the First Amendment. It went about as well as you’d expect.

They claim that 230 conflicts with itself, but that’s because they don’t understand that law, or how it works.… Image
2/ They make bold claims without backing them up about how social media platforms don’t have incentive to protect their brands by moderating content. In reality, platforms are widely held accountable for content they allow, and respond to public pressure all the time! Image
3/ If you accepted this statement uncritically, it might seem persuasive. But that “consensus” doesn’t actually exist. Democrats want platforms to remove *more* content, and Republicans want them to remove less. Image
Read 6 tweets
Motion for preliminary injunction GRANTED. Thoughts to follow, but this does not portend well for Florida.
The court analyzes preemption under 230(c)(2)(A), but doesn't touch (c)(1). Normally this would bother me, because that's not how #Section230 works. But if you read it, Hinkle doesn't really decide between the 230 interpretations; this reads more like an "even if FL is right"
Hinkle was obviously not swayed by Florida's attempt to brush off platforms' curation as meaningless and expressionless. He seems to understand that those functions are vital for their products to be usable.
Read 18 tweets
1/ Yesterday I explained how Florida got #Section230 wrong in its opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction against its social media law.

As promised, here in Part 2, I will tell you why they got the First Amendment wrong too.

2/ As I said yesterday, this case is really about the First Amendment. Florida tried to frontload Section 230, appealing to judicial restraint. But even if the court ruled on Section 230 preemption in Florida's favor, it would then still have to address the First Amendment issue.
3/ On the other hand, if the court rules on the First Amendment issue favorably to the law's challengers, it doesn't need to decide on how expansively or restrictively to read Section 230, thus avoiding a landmine. The First Amendment *is* the issue, and should be the prime focus
Read 47 tweets
1/ Florida filed its brief opposing the motion for a preliminary injunction against the state's new social media law.

I have thoughts. In this part I'll talk about what they got wrong about #Section230. In a second part, the First Amendment argument.

2/ The brief:…

Florida desperately wants to change the conversation to #Section230 instead of the First Amendment, because that's the conversation they've always wanted this to be about; it's the political hot button they want to feverishly mash.
3/ So they frontloaded the 230 discussion.

But they get off to a bad start by claiming that 230 was prompted only by the Stratton Oakmont, which held Prodigy liable for user content because it engaged in *some* content moderation.
Read 36 tweets
1/ Today the Texas House of Representatives votes on SB 12, a half-baked and unconstitutional "social media censorship" bill introduced by @SenBryanHughes after a similar bill failed in 2019.

This bill is no better than the last, and the house should vote it down.

2/ The bill would forbid platforms from removing content / banning users based on viewpoint (even viewpoints expressed *not* on the platform) and allow aggrieved parties to seek a court order (backed by mandatory contempt findings for non-compliance) to reinstate the user/content
3/ Not for nothing, the whole premise of the bill is flawed: there is vanishingly little support for the claim that platforms are removing content for ideological reasons as opposed to violations of platforms' rules, as this NYU Study found:…
Read 18 tweets
1/ Claremont continues to send (such as it is) with this rather flimsy and unserious piece from Larry Greenfield in @JewishJournal's 'The Speech Project.'…
2/ Greenfield's piece, titled "Big Tech is Big Trouble," leads off with talk of Aristotle, tyranny, totalitarianism, fascist, communists, and China, which is how you can be sure that this will be a very rational, level-headed read.
3/ Sure enough, he segues directly into the so-called "Big 5" of tech companies who he calls "the new rulers of our information age."

It's hard to tell if he's complaining that companies are recording "voluntary actions and thoughts." The sentence is unclear in its purpose.
Read 29 tweets
This is the most clear-headed, fresh and readable piece on #Section230 I've ever read. About the past, present, and possible future. Best is his discussion of the alternate history if 230 never passed Expert work, @GiladEdelman @WIRED…
Though this was not the focus of the piece it was truly refreshing for somebody to finally acknowledge the tactic used by many of the 230 defenders -- to belittle anybody who dares question or litigate against 230.
The defenders say we don't understand or we're too stupid to get it or say something flippant and untrue like "the only reason you can post your criticism of section 230 is because of section 230." You can't feel too sorry for the defenders. They're on the side of the powerful.
Read 4 tweets
1/ On Friday the Florida legislature passed the @GovRonDeSantis-backed Transparency in Technology Act, attempting to regulate how social media sites moderate content. DeSantis has 15 days to sign the bill, and is expected to. Here's why he shouldn't.…
2/ The bill would, in part, force platforms to carry the speech of candidates for office, publish detailed content moderation policies, and moderate content "consistently."

That's going to violate the First Amendment. Ironic, for a bill that's supposedly about free speech.
3/ Florida has tried this once before, with newspapers. In 1974, the Supreme Court struck down a Florida law requiring newspapers to publish responses from candidates who had been criticized in their publication.…
Read 20 tweets

Related hashtags

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!